Posted on 09/12/2006 11:22:26 AM PDT by pillut48
 |
| The warning depicted in the movie actually popped up when Mr. Atta went to board a plane from Maine to Boston, not in Boston, and the airline wasn't American. Does this not beg the question: Why did a warning NOT pop up in Boston at American Airline's check in since a warning on Mr. Atta did pop up on another carrier from Main to Boston? Maybe AA should let sleeping dogs lie. |
"Why did a warning NOT pop up in Boston at American Airline's check in since a warning on Mr. Atta did pop up on another carrier from Main to Boston?"
I have the same question.
I see...I thought he was in Boston as he was telling people after that he knew atta and his companion were on flight 11.
In the movie, the counter lady calls over her supervisor who checks the passport against Atta's face and hands it over to him. When he leaves, the counter lady asks the supervisor, "CAPPS warning--shouldn't he be searched?" and the reply is "No, just hold their bags 'til they board..."
What about the truth has their panties in a wad?
|
| Well AA uses the Sabre GDS which they developed in the '60s and later spun off as a separate company just before 9/11. If you check in for any reason with an agent and they look up your ticket, they see the exact same display. It doesn't matter whether you're changing a seat assignment, getting a boarding pass or buying your ticket. Northwest uses the Sabre system today, but used WorldSpan GDS, created by Delta until 2002. That may account for the difference. However, the point I was making was that if I was AA, I'd rather the movie depict that we had a system that caught him with a flag on his record, but regulations at the time only required that he actually board before loading his luggage, than have the world believe that we gave him a boarding pass as easy as a corn fed farm boy from Iowa. In 2001, once you were "in the system" ... that is, past security and your luggage checked, you were basically free of any further checks. You could walk off one plane and board a connecting flight without having your carry on checked again, and if an airport employee put an Uzi in your carry on, nobody would know the difference. I understand your point that Atta's luggage was checked by another airline, not American, but the argument that the AA spokesman is making is so trivial it's laughable. Yeah, technically it didn't happen that way. But if the film would have depicted Atta being flagged by a Northwest agent in Maine, as it truly did happen... the vast majority of the viewers would have started up conspiracy theories that Atta actually crashed a Northwest Airlines airplane somewhere and the Bush government covered it up by telling us there were only four hijacked planes that day. I did not see the movie implying there was a warning that was ignored. I saw the movie implying there warning that was handled exactly as it was supposed to be handled in 2001. In short, the government was the culprit, not the airline. The airline tagged him. AA can sue all they want. They'll never be able to demonstrate harm. What's their argument anyway? That they actually didn't screen him at all? That just doesn't sound like something has been thought through and may explain why the backed off very quickly today. I think Roger Frizzell, American's VP of corporate communications and advertising, in an e-mail posted on liberal Web site Americablog.blogspot.com is a Clintonista that stuck his foot in his mouth on a blog just because he found a technical innaccuracy. I'll bet he's the butt of a ton of jokes today in the Dallas Ft. Worth area. |
The same is true today. They *might* be running you through the security system again when they scan your boarding pass, but they don't routinely screen your carry on again. Why bother, if you could get an Uzi at a connecting airport, you could just travel from there, getting the Uzi once you were in the secure area, just the same as if you'd entered it from another flight.
Well Sandy, if you do, there are bound to be questions about those documents you stuff in your clothing. Want to answer those questions during "discovery"? I think an admitted criminal like you should just STFU, before he lands himself in prison.
Thanks for the clarification. I would be upset if I were running AA. Producers screwed up.
Mad - see Tiggs posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.